I know I heard somewhere that the Big 12 would try to fill the gap between Iowa State and West Virginia if they were to expand. Their only good options would be Cincy and Memphis. Decent sized new markets, near other Big 12 members and good facilities and programs (other than Memphis football) make them more realistically than Mountain West schools who would stretch the conference footprint too much.

It may get ugly if and/or when expansion is approached. And I think West Virginia is a bit of a trickster on the issue, because, like Louisville, their football thrived on having a reach into Florida. I think WVU probably wants the Florida schools, just like they did when they lost UMFL and felt USF was somehow worthy of Big East inclusion a decade ago. But, for a school who's supposedly begging for more "eastern reprieve," Florida doesn't help the travel issue, like, at all. But, it would help WVU regain some of its football "umph."

There was this very brief moment in the 80's and early 90's where Memphis (State) tried to get some consideration for the sWc, Big 8, and then Big XII (in addition to the lifetime-like pursuit of the SEC). We know how successful that went over. I don't think they have any shot, although I think they would be a good match. I think Cincinnati is a total win. I never expected their football program to essentially dominate the Big East, which it did, despite never drawing the interest it should have. I think the Big XII should want to be in the OH-PA region...it's the northeastern extremity of football country, and it will put Big XII games onto some eastern sets. But, it's Cincy...it's not the market that's the problem...they just don't care about Bearcat football at that school.

...but I think the type of schools the Big XII would want are westward. Big schools and flagships that are relatively travel-friendly...those are found in the MWC.

Last edited by The Bishin Cutter on Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

Why does the B12 want to be in competition with Ohio St and the B10 in a small tv market in Cinn?

Technically, they already are in PA. We never used to see Big XII games on basic cable in Philly. Now, WVU seems almost local.

Also, this is the Big Ten...don't think for a second any Big XII school other than Texas wouldn't take an invite in a heartbeat if it came to them. The Big Ten's already the bully. It's the Big XII that needs to make its presence felt.

When the B12 picked WVU, I recall both the conference and WVU dismissive of the travel and distance factors. It was "we can work with that", and "we don't see it as much of a concern". Well, if fb, it may not be an alarming concern; in bb, it has been a concern; in other olympic sports, it has been a big concern, some of it going both ways.

They all thought it was 'logical' when the decision was made. One school, geographically isolated from the rest, seemed as reasonable a decision as if it was Arkansas or Iowa chosen. Was WVU counting on or told there would be 'fillers' in the near future for the geographic divide? Maybe. WVU was focused on escaping the BE, and the B12 was thinking about just going to '10' which is what happened. Whatever courtship attempts that were made with ACC schools, nothing was successful with that.

The B12 should have taken Louisville & Cincy when they added WVU. Now, L'ville is in the ACC and WVU is in the B12, and Cincy settles for where they were destined, a carry-over in the formation of the AAC.

Had the B12 taken all 3, Cincy would have been more than just a modest market to add. It would have been a partner, and would have offered a 'reasonable travel' conference opponent for the other two and vice versa. It would also have offered depth for the conference in the Ohio Valley and border regions.

Cincy is not going to be an economic powerhouse for any conference, but they are capable of serving a purpose and fit into a rational design.

The bottom line, the B12 is not focused on growth as much as they are security. This conference is set-up for Texas scheduling, and to be perceived strong enough that they are sustained with the elite. They show no intention, as a conference, to reach beyond that. If they get burned enough, and cry enough, and criticized enough, by/for not having a CCG to get a consistent playoff spot, then they'll look for 2 more; whatever the minimum they need to do. They'll be schools that can be controlled, not hot prospects for other top conferences, but have some measure of respectablity for the association. Wait 5 or so years and see what trend develops regarding the playoff/bowl situations.

If the Big 12 had taken Louisville, West Virginia, and Cincinnati so that all would have been in the league for 2013, would The American even exist? The only catches I would see would be Rutgers, Connecticut, Temple, and South Florida. The first two would be accounted for in 2014 (Connecticut replaces Louisville in the ACC), although the Big Ten might be more willing to force the issue with a seriously wounded Big East. Temple and USF would head to C-USA.

The bottom line, the B12 is not focused on growth as much as they are security. This conference is set-up for Texas scheduling, and to be perceived strong enough that they are sustained with the elite. They show no intention, as a conference, to reach beyond that. If they get burned enough, and cry enough, and criticized enough, by/for not having a CCG to get a consistent playoff spot, then they'll look for 2 more; whatever the minimum they need to do. They'll be schools that can be controlled, not hot prospects for other top conferences, but have some measure of respectablity for the association. Wait 5 or so years and see what trend develops regarding the playoff/bowl situations.

Yeah, the current situation favors the Longhorns and Sooners. While I still believe their name recognition won't always get them access should they be the Big XII's best team any specific season, their name with a 12-0 or 11-1 record will get them more looks than a Kansas State, Oklahoma State, or Texas Tech of the same mark. However, the entire conference needs to schedule well in the non-conference to get all the help it can from the computers. With too much fluff, the computers will spurn them regardless of the name, and it will force the committee to overlook those numbers; a committee of folk with teams with 13 games. That will be a lofty expectation. As is, the way some/many in the conference schedule, the Big XII fans can't argue "quality over quantity." They have neither.

I do agree that the potential future members (if it comes to be) will be ones who are fine with the revenue splitting and other self-serving factors schools like Texas and Oklahoma will want. I think that's why some were so high on Air Force back when this whole thing almost collapsed...those guys wouldn't do what Baylor would eventually threaten to, and it's not like the school had nowhere else to go.

To recap, out of 30 OOC games:8 are against FCS16 are against SBC (5), MAC (2), C-USA (5), AAC (2), and non-BCS independents(2)----only 3 of these are away games6 are against other Power 5 conference members and Notre Dame----3 of these are neutral site games, Oklahoma will be the only B12 team traveling to a hostile stadium to face an elite foe)

I don't see the Big 12 expanding for a few more years. But if they do, I think they would be wise to consider UCF and USF. From a marketing standpoint they would add more viewers than if they went after Cincy and Memphis. From a recruiting angle, you can't do much better than Florida. There is an argument to be made for which state has the best recruiting grounds be it California, Texas, or Florida. If you are the Big 12, wouldn't it be wise to establish yourself in 2 out of the 3 major hotbeds of talent. The SEC has already set up shop in the heart of the Big 12, with Texas AM jumping ship. It won't be long before teams like Alabama, Auburn, Georgia and Florida are getting recruits from Texas. I don't believe that will have a great deal of impact on UT or OU, but it will have a tremendous impact on the rest of the conference who rely on getting what's left after Texas and OU pick their recruits. The Big 12 is going to need another pond to fish in, and I think it would be in the Big 12's best interest to consider adding UCF and USF to get into that area. Iowa State had some success this past year in recruiting the state of Florida. Wouldn't it be easier to get recruits from Florida if you came to town every other year. I know the Big 12 would be much more interested if it was FSU and Miami, but they aren't going to be available for quite some time, if ever. IF USF and UCF are at the top of the AAC with Cincinnati for the next couple of years, I think it would be a mistake to take the Bearcats and whoever else over the two Florida schools.

To recap, out of 30 OOC games:8 are against FCS16 are against SBC (5), MAC (2), C-USA (5), AAC (2), and non-BCS independents(2)----only 3 of these are away games6 are against other Power 5 conference members and Notre Dame----3 of these are neutral site games, Oklahoma will be the only B12 team traveling to a hostile stadium to face an elite foe)

To recap, out of 56 OOC games:EVERY SEC school plays an FCS team (compared to only 8 in the Big 12) and Alabama even plays 2.27 are against SBC (8), MAC (6), C-USA (7), AAC (4), MWC (1) and non-BCS independent (1)----only 3 of these are away games(that's 1 game shy of half of the SEC's OOC schedule which is about the same as the Big 12 which is 1 game more than half, plus when you factor in nonBCS+FCS the Big 12 clearly has more qualitly non BCS OOC games).

14 are against other Power 5 conference members...here's the difference all the rest is B/S.

The Big 12 plays a 9 game conference schedule meaning everyone plays 9 BCS level opponents + they have 6 of them have a 10th on the schedule and 4 others do not (KU, KSU, TT, Baylor).

The SEC plays an 8 game conference schedule schedule meaning everyone plays 8 BCS level opponents + they all try to have a 9th on the schedule, however 3 do not (Texas A&M, Kentucky, Arkansas) but 3 have a 10th BCS level rival scheduled to make up for it (FL, GA, SC).

If you want to say FL/GA/SC are better than KU/KSU/TT/Bay then fine but to insinuate that the SEC just has flat out more difficult OOC schedules than the Big 12 is mostly false. The SEC has a tougher conference schedule granted, which is why their champ will make the playoff 90% of the time, however that's besides the point.

If any B12 team goes undefeated they'll make it in regardless of the SOS, with 1 loss most likely Texas/OU/OkSU/TCU/WVU would still make it in with their recently history and OOC schedule but likely not TT/KU/KSU/Baylor or ISU.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

...but to insinuate that the SEC just has flat out more difficult OOC schedules than the Big 12 is mostly false...

...except that it's entirely true.

For the TAMU's UK's, and Arky's in the SEC, there's UF's, USC's, and UGA's to make up for it. There's NOBODY doing that in the Big XII.

What half the Big XII is doing is going to kill the other on the computers. You can take comfort in your schools' brands and name, but their work will not statistically hold up if this is how they continue do business down there.

Tkalmus--didn't mean to get your feathers ruffled but you are preaching to the choir by telling my how weak the SEC schedules OOC. All of the Power 5 conferences should be looking to the PAC12 and Big 10 for scheduling models. I applaud both leagues for having or moving to 9 game League schedule. The PAC 12 schools are always scheduling decent opponents from east of the Rockies and the MWC schools they play are not automatic wins. The Big 10 has made a bold move by doing away with FCS opponents--a move the other leagues should follow. The Big 10 has also come up with an unconventional plan to pair the best of the east and west divisions in cross divisional play. Additionally the Big 10 and PAC 12 champs have to play that all important conference title game--something a Big 12 winner doesn't have to do.

...but to insinuate that the SEC just has flat out more difficult OOC schedules than the Big 12 is mostly false...

...except that it's entirely true.

For the TAMU's UK's, and Arky's in the SEC, there's UF's, USC's, and UGA's to make up for it. There's NOBODY doing that in the Big XII.

What half the Big XII is doing is going to kill the other on the computers. You can take comfort in your schools' brands and name, but their work will not statistically hold up if this is how they continue do business down there.

Way to miss the point, the Big 12 plays 10 BCS calibur games, the SEC plays 9. The SEC is playing fewer quality opponents while the Big 12 plays more even with the weaker schedules of KU/KSU/TT/Bay.

And I haven't brought my school into this conversation because my schools doing fine with 2 of 3 OOC starting this year till 2020 already on the schedule. USC, tOSU, Ole Miss, BYU, UCLA, Maryland, Cal, Arky and ND just to name a few which shows how informed your last sentence was...http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/big-12/ ... ghorns.php

Besides the point wasn't me defending the Big 12, it was more so me defending this stupid vision the OOC scheduling matters SO much. When you look at the polls, the record and name is #1 and 2 scheduling is only a tie breaker. If anyone honestly thinks an undefeated Big 12/Pac12/B1G/ACC champ won't make it into the playoff then you're looney tunes.

If we're talking about 1 loss then YES this matters more but still the brand matters (why Boise might make it in one day but Nevada most likely won't).

fighting muskie wrote:

Tkalmus--didn't mean to get your feathers ruffled but you are preaching to the choir by telling my how weak the SEC schedules OOC. All of the Power 5 conferences should be looking to the PAC12 and Big 10 for scheduling models. I applaud both leagues for having or moving to 9 game League schedule. The PAC 12 schools are always scheduling decent opponents from east of the Rockies and the MWC schools they play are not automatic wins. The Big 10 has made a bold move by doing away with FCS opponents--a move the other leagues should follow. The Big 10 has also come up with an unconventional plan to pair the best of the east and west divisions in cross divisional play. Additionally the Big 10 and PAC 12 champs have to play that all important conference title game--something a Big 12 winner doesn't have to do.

no problem muskie, just the tone of some of what was said above I disagree with. I hate weak OOC games and want an FCS ban (or limit, Alabama shouldn't be able to play 2 every year). I'm happy that some schools are making an effort but playing 1 neutral site game every year or a rival doesn't make you a badass. I applaud FL/GA/SC for what they are doing but also people should really be criticizing schools like A&M for not having a single quality OOC opponent just like I see people criticizing the lesser Big 12 schools.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

Toughness of schedules of a conference are mixed. If one looks at pre-season, during season, and post-season schedule power ratings, by Jeff Sagarin and others, there's not a particular tight grouping of major conferences in this regard. And collective power statistics for a particular conference can shift somewhat from year to year. The SEC discussed the issue of going to 9 conference games. It's not all about finding four winnable OOC games. As mentioned, those members with in-state FBS-type rivals, who three, incidently, have the "tenth" FBS games for the upcoming season THIS YEAR, may indeed have to meet an added challenge comparatively, within conference. The SEC, WITHIN conference, has had sensitive debates about who plays who within conference for a given year and who the cross-division opponents shall be.As to scheduling FCS games, most one per season, that is not always done to find a real "given". In some states, there has been political pressure to offer certain games with an FCS school. It helps keep some FCS schools afloat, even if they know they'll be a punching bag on a Saturday. I get annoyed as many when I see a top powerhouse having 3 or 4 cupcakes as OOCs'.The BIG seeking to delete FCS scheduling does relate to improving power ratings. But it is also about revenue. Big checks have been disbursed to the Appalachain States' and certain FCS/non-BCS types (Ball States') for one-time visitations. And losing such a game can cost the coaching staff their jobs.

Odd circumstances do happen. Remember when WVU booked to the B12 and cancelled a game with FSU? FSU had to scramble and come with Savannah State, who also had another B12 team, Oklahoma State, scheduled for the season. To highlight Texas A&M for a weak OOC schedule needs a footnote. When A&M left the B12, they had to scramble to re-assemble near future schedules, and certain schools in the B12 called it quits with them. Not sure what Mizzou had to do, but they do play Indiana (BIG) this year.

Certain schools with big names, are always graced with nice ratings early-on and pollster seem reluctant to dislodge them quickly. How many times in the recent era has USC (the left coast one), been hailed as the team of the century or more modestly, the decade, only to fall to Oregon State and/or Stanford, etc. during the season?

I'd like to every FBS school play at least one non-conference FBS school each season--a permanent or non-permanent one. I also like schools having some flexibility. If South Carolina, for example, has to play Clemson, wants to play an in-state FCS school, and play a North Carolina team for recruiting purposes or knowing it shall be well attended, then have a system that allows such to happen. For SEC schools more central to the conference, certain objectives may differ some. And if a conference team is playing 3, 4, or 5 ranked teams in conference, which some can handle well while others don't, having a couple of games that are not so intense may not be so bad.

Last edited by sec03 on Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum